Antarctica gains ice for first time in decades, reversing trend of mass loss, study finds (1 Viewer)

[longview]

Why? You know what you wrote. I know what you wrote. And if you think anyone else is reading this drivel, dream on.

You have enough education to think you do. The people with way more formal education plus years working in the field disagree.

I trust them, not you.

Context is everything, and you are not quoting enough to carry the context.
As for education, most people with at least a BS degree, have enough physics to understand
that C/frequency is the wavelength. What they may not know is that a single receiver like the satellites use,
cannot resolve the phase of the returning wavelength, so the resolution becomes limited to one wavelength.
The highest frequency band used for clear conditions is Ku-band (13.5-14 GHz): with a wavelength of 21.4 mm.
If conditions are cloudy, they use the C-Band with a wavelength of 54.5 mm.
Now mind you, that is the theoretical best resolution, but they also have to subtract out the tide phase.

 

[jpn]

Context is everything,

Exactly. To understand the whole context, one needs to be knowledgeable about the whole argument, not little nits and supposed "gotchas."

Contact a real climate scientist sometime. Discuss your amateur suppositions with them. See how far you get before they start giggling.

To get you started, here's a directory of some real scientists you can contact: https://uwpcc.ocean.washington.edu/directory

 

[NOLA Dude]

Exactly. To understand the whole context, one needs to be knowledgeable about the whole argument, not little nits and supposed "gotchas."

Contact a real climate scientist sometime. Discuss your amateur suppositions with them. See how far you get before they start giggling.

To get you started, here's a directory of some real scientists you can contact: https://uwpcc.ocean.washington.edu/directory

Why should we be concerned about current CO2 levels of around 400 ppm when, for millions of years before humans existed, CO2 averaged over 1,000 ppm often reaching 2,000 ppm?

 

[jaypatriot]

But.. But.. But.. OP got a shot in at the Dems.. That's all that matters... Lol

But,....BUt... But...
I thought Greta Thunberg and Al Gore already told us what we needed to do in order to halt "global warning".
Are we not already doing it if the South Pole is adding more to the ice sheet?

 

[longview]

Exactly. To understand the whole context, one needs to be knowledgeable about the whole argument, not little nits and supposed "gotchas."

Contact a real climate scientist sometime. Discuss your amateur suppositions with them. See how far you get before they start giggling.

To get you started, here's a directory of some real scientists you can contact: https://uwpcc.ocean.washington.edu/directory

When the theory does not match the experiment, the theory is wrong!
that is simply the way it is!
In this case we were discussing the accuracy of satellite altimetry, which has almost nothing to do with
climate science, and falls more into may area Physics.

 

[jpn]

Why should we be concerned about current CO2 levels of around 400 ppm when, for millions of years before humans existed, CO2 averaged over 1,000 ppm often reaching 2,000 ppm?

For answers, get a Ph.D. in climate science, then read some papers on the subject.

-OR-

For those of us without Ph.D.s in climate science, the good people at NASA have a web page for the general public that addresses some of the consequences:

The Effects of Climate Change​

The effects of human-caused global warming are happening now, are irreversible for people alive today, and will worsen as long as humans add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.​

​

-ALSO-

For a more detailed discussion, the IPCC has reports for people like you who are so genuinely interested in the subject.

Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group II contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report

www.ipcc.ch

FAQ 3: How will climate change affect the lives of today’s children tomorrow, if no immediate action is taken?​

FAQ 3: How will climate change affect the lives of today’s children tomorrow, if no immediate action is taken?

.

www.ipcc.ch

 

[NOLA Dude]

For answers, get a Ph.D. in climate science, then read some papers on the subject.

-OR-

For those of us without Ph.D.s in climate science, the good people at NASA have a web page for the general public that addresses some of the consequences:

The Effects of Climate Change​

The effects of human-caused global warming are happening now, are irreversible for people alive today, and will worsen as long as humans add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.​

​

-ALSO-

For a more detailed discussion, the IPCC has reports for people like you who are so genuinely interested in the subject.

Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group II contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report

www.ipcc.ch

That has nothing to do with the question I asked you. I understand while you climate change supporters won't answer it. It exposes the climate change movement as a fraud.

 

[jpn]

When the theory does not match the experiment, the theory is wrong!
that is simply the way it is!
In this case we were discussing the accuracy of satellite altimetry, which has almost nothing to do with
climate science, and falls more into may area Physics.

Then tell someone who is qualified. What's stopping you?

 

[NOLA Dude]

Of course it does.

If you can't stand the answer, don't ask the question.

You didn't answer the question lol.

You just posted links about climate change. Let's try again:

Why should we be concerned about current CO2 levels of around 400 ppm when, for millions of years before humans existed, CO2 averaged over 1,000 ppm often reaching 2,000 ppm?

 

[longview]

Then tell someone who is qualified. What's stopping you?

You have opinions without the technical background to support those opinions, that is called faith!

 

[jpn]

That has nothing to do with the question I asked you. I understand while you climate change supporters won't answer it. It exposes the climate change movement as a fraud.

Sorry, I tend to overestimate some posters here. Let me dumb it down for you.

Your questions was, "Why should we be concerned about current CO2 levels of around 400 ppm when, for millions of years before humans existed, CO2 averaged over 1,000 ppm often reaching 2,000 ppm?"

Well, you see, when Earth formed 4.6 billion years ago from a hot mix of gases and solids, it had almost no atmosphere. At all. The surface was molten. As Earth cooled, an atmosphere formed mainly from gases spewed from volcanoes. It included hydrogen sulfide, methane, and ten to 200 times as much carbon dioxide as today's atmosphere.

The composition of the atmosphere has changed dramatically since then. It's gone through periods of excessive oxygen, which allowed insects to grow to horrifying proportions. And CO2 content has fluctuated, too. A lot.

Humans have flourished during a fairly benign period in Earth's evolution, during a relatively warm interglacial period within the current ice age.

It's all very interesting, but has little to do with the relatively brief period during with humans have been running around. During this time, atmospheric changes have been small.

That's why, in our current age, abrupt changes in the atmosphere and therefore the climate will negatively affect our civilization, which depends on a fairly narrow range.

 

[jpn]

You have opinions without the technical background to support those opinions, that is called faith!

It's called recognizing the long, successful run science has had in understanding our natural world (we didn't cure polio or reach the Moon on "faith"), and also recognizing argumentation based on motivations other than true understanding.

Okay, that's not fair. But raise your issues with someone who's qualified to answer them. Why waste your time here?

I mean, who has the greater reputation? NASA or you? NOAA or you? The National Academies of Science or you? The Royal Society or you? Every nationally recognized scientific institution on the planet or you?

 

[longview]

It's called recognizing the long, successful run science has had in understanding our natural world (we didn't cure polio or reach the Moon on "faith"), and also recognizing argumentation based on motivations other than true understanding.

Okay, that's not fair. But raise your issues with someone who's qualified to answer them. Why waste your time here?

I mean, who has the greater reputation? NASA or you? NOAA or you? The National Academies of Science or you? The Royal Society or you? Every nationally recognized scientific institution on the planet or you?

This is a debate site, so debate to the best of your knowledge, and appeal to authority is not a debate.
I understand the science, the conditions of the concept that added CO2 is causing warming has not been met.
There is no empirical evidence that what is claimed by the supporters of the concept, is actually happening.

 

[Lord of Planar]

What "scam"? You know nothing except what your confirmation bias tells you.

I understand. You have been converted to an AGW cult member.

If you wish to discuss this, we need to debate the science. Not how you know nothing about these sciences and believe the big lie.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The link contained references to dozens of non-peer reviewed articles which were condensed and cherry-picked to fit the agenda.

Not true. The link in the link of the OP references dozens of papers. The papers itself is peer reviewed.

This is the paper:

Spatiotemporal mass change rate analysis from 2002 to 2023 over the Antarctic Ice Sheet and four glacier basins in Wilkes-Queen Mary Land - Science China Earth Sciences

To accurately evaluate the Antarctic Ice Sheet (AIS) mass change rate and its spatiotemporal characteristics, we derive the AIS mass change series from April 2002 to December 2023 using an improved point-mass model approach with data-driven regularization matrices and iteratively determined...

link.springer.com

Furthermore the trend is a depletion of Antarctic ice, regardless of seasonal fluctuations. It is emphatically not evidence that anthropogenic global warming is a "scam". Of course you have the opportunity to prove your claim.

Sea Ice Today | National Snow and Ice Data Center

nsidc.org

You linked the Arctic. Not Antarctica. Do you not even know the difference? Then this is also showing sea ice. Not shelf ice.

You are not in our league. If you want to learn, then listen and learn, because what you are posting is an absolute joke to the topic.

Ice Sheets | NASA Global Climate Change

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

climate.nasa.gov

GRACE is one instrument. Satellites are known for their inaccuracy seeing from so far away, and the long term drift. Even that GRACE data shows an increase in Antarctic ice from 2020 to 2023 like the study claims.

Never rely on this subsection of NASA. Look at the credentials of the writers. Without going to the actual GRACE data, I just laugh at anything from climate dot NASA.

 

[snakestretcher]

Not true. The link in the link of the OP references dozens of papers. The papers itself is peer reviewed.

This is the paper:

Spatiotemporal mass change rate analysis from 2002 to 2023 over the Antarctic Ice Sheet and four glacier basins in Wilkes-Queen Mary Land - Science China Earth Sciences

To accurately evaluate the Antarctic Ice Sheet (AIS) mass change rate and its spatiotemporal characteristics, we derive the AIS mass change series from April 2002 to December 2023 using an improved point-mass model approach with data-driven regularization matrices and iteratively determined...

link.springer.com

You linked the Arctic. Not Antarctica. Do you not even know the difference? Then this is also showing sea ice. Not shelf ice.

You are not in our league. If you want to learn, then listen and learn, because what you are posting is an absolute joke to the topic.

GRACE is one instrument. Satellites are known for their inaccuracy seeing from so far away, and the long term drift. Even that GRACE data shows an increase in Antarctic ice from 2020 to 2023 like the study claims.

Never rely on this subsection of NASA. Look at the credentials of the writers. Without going to the actual GRACE data, I just laugh at anything from climate dot NASA.

I follow the science, not my bias. You clearly have an agenda-denial of global warming. You are in a tiny minority. Oh, and albedo works the same way whether in the northern or southern hemispheres. You are in no position to pontificate or arrogantly dismiss anyone as not being in whatever you think your 'league' is. You're an amateur.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Not that long and the scale doable.What's worse?? Hydro, solar and wind or a system that ensures a lethal vulnerability?? Since Johnson, every British leader has had it in for Russia and aggressively aggravated it through Ukraine. So the solution for GB now is to give global hackers a perfect system for retaliation?? And it's not just Russia. There' re internal problems, too with plenty of Scots and Irish wanting independence. Nuclear is a dumb idea. We're fighting it here, too

I would not say nuclear is a dumb idea. The technology is now to the point where we can make accident free power plants, unless something like an asteroid hits it. The waste material isn't really as bad to contain as many fear. Yes, it is dangerous, but we have come a long way since the 70's.

Hydro has been used just about every place that is is practical already.

Solar I like, but it is hard to get the places where solar works to where is is needed most. I am very, very stingy with where I am OK with subsidies under its original definition, and when it comes to green energy. I am all for tax payer dollars making a HVDC super highway across the nations.

Wind, I despise. Mark my words here. We already have abandoned wind farms that are an eyesore, and we will have more in the future, because wind power is not and probably =never will be economically sustainable.

 

[snakestretcher]

I understand. You have been converted to an AGW cult member.

If you wish to discuss this, we need to debate the science. Not how you know nothing about these sciences and believe the big lie.

Au contraire; the 'cult' you refer to is composed of conspiracy theorists, disseminators of misinformation and climate change deniers. That would be you. It's just a shame for you that global consensus of the world's leading scientists conflicts with yours.

Bot-like accounts share climate disinformation and conspiracy

Bot-like accounts have spread conspiracy theories about climate cults and a global elite, amplifying disinformation on social media

globalwitness.org

 

[Lord of Planar]

Snow and ice cover has been reducing for over 10,000 years, much of it much faster than today.
This happened in the Southern Hemisphere as well.
Reduced surface reflection is a factor in surface solar radiation (SSR), but I suspect clouds play a larger role.

Look at the global urban sprawl reducing albedo also from trees and grass to asphalt concrete and buildings.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I thought the same regarding the tariffs. It would actually help environment health

I would like to see the USA tell other nations shipping us goods, that we will only accept ships into US ports that meet strict environmental standards. We wouldn't be able to do that immediately, but each year phase in a new tighter standard. Give them time to update their fuel quality and engine emissions.

 

[Lord of Planar]

That's your trouble.

Instead of "thinking about it for a second," go to school and earn a Ph.D.

You have zero ground to say that.

Then work in the field doing research for a decade or so.
Then come here and let us know why everyone else who is similarly qualified is wrong and you're right.

Again, you do not know what you speak of.

Once a person understands the necessary base sciences, it is very, very easy to understand the climate sciences.

You obviously have zero scientific knowledge, else you would understand this to be true.

Until then, the intelligent conclusion is that you have no idea what you're talking about.

No. Your decision is very far from intelligent.

 

[snakestretcher]

Look at the global urban sprawl reducing albedo also from trees and grass to asphalt concrete and buildings.

There is no 'urban sprawl' in the Antarctic, so your 'heat island' premise is redundant as far as that continent is concerned.

 

[snakestretcher]

You have zero ground to say that.

Again, you do not know what you speak of.

Once a person understands the necessary base sciences, it is very, very easy to understand the climate sciences.

You obviously have zero scientific knowledge, else you would understand this to be true.

No. Your decision is very far from intelligent.

Hint; arrogance is not an attractive quality.

 

[Lord of Planar]

As I said the increase was between 1690 and 1730. Why did we not see a big spike in temperature then? From then on it’s been flat.

There are other factors that modulate the temperature besides solar. It is just one aspect that gives us a starting baseline for the rest to modulate from that baseline.

Well, here is an older graph I made using data from SORCE. There is a lag in the ocean to atmosphere coupling and the oceans absorb almost all the shortwave changes. The lag is in dispute, but here is an equalization graph using different years for a 70% equalization.



I made this graph myself, so the only source i have is the data for TSI from:

Home

Welcome to the Home Page of the SOlar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) The Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) is a NASA-sponsored satellite mission that is providing state-of-the-art measurements of incoming x-ray, ultraviolet, visible, near-infrared, and total solar...

lasp.colorado.edu

 

[NOLA Dude]

Sorry, I tend to overestimate some posters here. Let me dumb it down for you.

Your questions was, "Why should we be concerned about current CO2 levels of around 400 ppm when, for millions of years before humans existed, CO2 averaged over 1,000 ppm often reaching 2,000 ppm?"

Well, you see, when Earth formed 4.6 billion years ago from a hot mix of gases and solids, it had almost no atmosphere. At all. The surface was molten. As Earth cooled, an atmosphere formed mainly from gases spewed from volcanoes. It included hydrogen sulfide, methane, and ten to 200 times as much carbon dioxide as today's atmosphere.

The composition of the atmosphere has changed dramatically since then. It's gone through periods of excessive oxygen, which allowed insects to grow to horrifying proportions. And CO2 content has fluctuated, too. A lot.

Humans have flourished during a fairly benign period in Earth's evolution, during a relatively warm interglacial period within the current ice age.

It's all very interesting, but has little to do with the relatively brief period during with humans have been running around. During this time, atmospheric changes have been small.

That's why, in our current age, abrupt changes in the atmosphere and therefore the climate will negatively affect our civilization, which depends on a fairly narrow range.

Your point about historical atmospheric ignores the main issue. CO2 levels were often 1,000-2,000 ppm for millions of years supporting thriving ecosystems without humans affecting anything.

The current 400 ppm is still far below those natural highs and gradual changes and adaptations show the Earth can handle these levels without the apocalyptic predictions of the climate change crowd. Our civilization has adapted to much greater environmental shifts before. Why should we assume this modest CO2 increase will be uniquely destabilizing?